Gastropod shell utilization preferences of hermit crab Clibanarius zebra (Dana, 1852) (Diogenidae: Anomura)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to characterize the patterns of gastropod shell utilization by the hermit crab Clibanarius zebra (Dana, 1852) from four different sites along the Saurashtra coast, Gujarat state, India. A total of 404 individuals of hermit crab were captured (223 males, 147 females and 34 ovigerous females), occupying 22 species of gastropod shells. Maximum species diversity of shells occupied by the crab was observed at Veraval. Amongst all the shell species identified, Cerithium scabridum (36.88 %) was highly occupied by the crab species followed by Astra stellata (11.39 %), Turbo intercostalis (10.64 %), Cerithidia cingulata (9.16 %) and Lunella coronata (7.43 %). Males of C. zebra utilized a wide range of shell species (21 species), while non ovigerous females (13 species) and ovigerous females (7 species) use a specific set of gastropod shell species. The density of live common shell species occupied by C. zebra was also calculated and results revealed that the density of C. scabridum was very high in the intertidal zone compared to other gastropods. This indicates that density of shells may influence the utilization of shells by C. Zebra. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/tapro.v5i1.5656 TAPROBANICA, April, 2012. Vol. 05, No. 01: pp. 12-18
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".